A question came up in a VT game the other night. Elesdri (Tomb of Horrors, p23. a Lamia) has an attack "Devouring Swarm - Melee 5, Target (1, 2, or 3 creatures), etc. a Fighter had her marked, and was upset that I ruled that since one of her three attacks were against the fighter, he could not interrupt an attack vs the leader with Combat Challenge.
The fighter's grounds for the argument was that Melee attack and damages are rolled separately for each target, therefore each individual attack either needs to be vs the fighter, or trigger Mark/CC
For the sake of keeping the game going, I ruled that one of the attacks was vs the Fighter, and therefore the conditions to pass the Mark were met. There was a little bit of "But melee attacks are all made separately, are each individual attacks.
So I presented the situation to CS and asked CS
So, my main question then, is does Combat Challenge (and other Defender Interrupts) trigger in this manner? If someone gets multiple melee attacks from a single Attack/Power usage, do they risk Defender Interrupts if they use of those melee attacks vs "A target that does not include" the Defender? Or are they safe because at least 1 of the multiple attacks from the Power/Attack Entry targetted the Defender?
In the meantime, accoring to the Rules Compendium, p100-103ish, under various Melee, Close, Area attacks, Targeting Multiple Targets is nearly identical. "If a [Melee/Close/Area] power has multiple targets and includes attack rolls or damage rolls, the attack rolls are made separately agains teach target" Only the addition of either one damage roll for area/close attacks or separate damage rolls for melee attacks differed.
Under Close attacks, under Targets. it says "a close power targets specific individuals within the power's area of effect"
So the "separate target" argument would mean that blasts/bursts would also trigger Combat Challenge, even if the Fighter is ne of the targets, because each target is a "separate" target.
Anyway, CS replied today with
Greetings ,
Thank you for your patience as we looked into this for you! I have double checked with the developers and the combat challenge will not trigger in this case, only when no part of an attack targets the fighter.
Please let me know if you have any other questions!
Since I asked about multiple attacks in a single power, then I am going with that interpretation, but there are some that will still argue that "attack" does not always mean "attack power", even though according to the Compendium, and Rules Compendium p308
Attack
An attack roll and its effects, including any damage rolls. The word “attack” is sometimes used as shorthand for “attack power.” Some attack powers include multiple attacks, and some powers, such as magic missile, are designated as attacks yet lack attack rolls (using such a power counts as making an attack if the power has a target).
I am going to reply and ask them why.. to see if they break it down to say that Combat Challenge should trigger when "An enemy adjacent to you uses an attack [power] that does not include you as one of the targets".. since the big part of argument comes from people thinking multiple attacks in a single attack POWER are separate, and thus must each be on the Fighter, or trigger Mark/CC Interrupt/abilities
"Five million Cybermen, easy. One Doctor? NOW you're scared!" - Rose Tyler
"When using a 'choose a target for someone else's attack' power, can you make the attacker hit itself?"
This one came up in a couple PbPs of mine (between mages and Skald's armor, lots of forced attacks). I'd made a ruling that two of the players disagreed with, so I finally got around to doing full research on it. The only discussion I found related to the subject (here), which initially came up with a different answer than I had and then devolved into a debate about Dominated. So I finally got around to asking CS…
There are multiple powers and items which allow the user to force their target to use an attack power on a creature of their choice. This includes, but is not limited to, anything which involves the Dominate power, Skald's Armor, Dimensional Vortex, Hypnotism, Charm of Misplaced Wrath, and so on.
The question is this: Unless the power specifies otherwise (such as Screaming Madness, Utterance of Mockery, Aspect of Stolen Identity), is it legal for the user to select the target of the initiating power as the target of the secondary attack? In other words, if one uses Skald's Armor to redirect the triggering attack, can that be redirected to the one making the attack (assuming they are adjacent to the armor's wearer)? If one uses Charm of Misplaced Wrath, can they have the target attack itself? If one uses Dimensional Vortex on a creature, does that count as having a legal target for the redirected attack?
In my opinion, based on the conditional clauses in Dimensional Vortex and Curse of Dark Delirium, the answer is "No, they can't attack themself unless specifically allowed otherwise." The former power because if it was not intended to be used in that fashion, there'd probably not be a clause to specify what to do if there wasn't a legal creature target (unless, of course, it was to cover those rare instances when it's used on a non-creature); Dark Delirium because if it, as (IMO) one of the highest level and strongest versions of a "Dominate/Charm" effect, cannot be used for "suicidal" uses, then nothing else should be allowed to do so either, unless otherwise specified.
I just would like to know the "official position." Thanks.
The easiest way to describe this is that you can't make a hypnotized person cause harm to themselves. So, much like the real world, the magical world works the same way. You can take control of them, you can make them attack friends, but you can't make them jump off a cliff. Make sense? We would appreciate your feedback on the service we are providing you. Please click here to fill out a short questionnaire.
To login to your account, or update your question please click here.
Justin Online Response Crew Wizards of the Coast 1-800-324-6496 (US and Canada) 425-204-8069 (From all other countries) Monday-Sunday 9am-6pm PST / 12pm-9pm EST
Just adding this to the compilation, in case anyone else starts searching for it.
• Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's circumstances, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Abusive (Personal Attack)— Insulting the person, not addressing the argument. • Ad Hominem Tu Quoque— Saying the person's inconsistent, not addressing the argument. • Appeal to Authority/Belief/Common Practice/Consequence of a Belief/Emotion/Fear/Flattery/Novelty/Pity/Popularity/Ridicule/Spite/Tradition— Using emotion instead of Fact. • Bandwagon— Use of peer pressure. • Begging the Question— Assuming premises which haven't necessarily been agreed to. • Biased Sample— Using a sampling which may not properly represent the whole. • Burden of Proof— Shifting it to the wrong side. • Circumstantial Ad Hominem— Attacking the person's interests in supporting their argument. • Composition— Assuming that the whole has the same qualities as individual parts. • Confusing Cause & Effect— Assuming that one thing causes another because they appear in conjunction. • Division— Assuming that the individual parts have the same qualities as the whole. • False Dilemma— Assuming that only two options exist. • Gambler's Fallacy— Assuming the odds have changed because of past occurances • Genetic— Assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim is proof of a defect in the claim. • Guilt by Association— Attacking others who agree with the claim. • Hasty Generalization— Assuming a quality based on too small a sample size. • Ignoring the Common Cause— Assuming there is no outside cause of two connected things. • Middle Ground— Assuming the midpoint of two extremes must be correct. • Misleading Vividness— Assuming a colorful anecdote outweighs statistical evidence. • Poisoning the Well— Using unprovable claims about the person instead of addressing the argument. • Post Hoc— Assuming that something caused something else simply because it happened first. • Questionable Cause— Assuming that one thing causes another. • Red Herring— Using irrelevant evidence to divert a discussion. • Relativist Fallacy— Asserting that a claim may be true for some but not for the speaker. • Slippery Slope— Assuming the inevitability of one event based on another. • Special Pleading— Claiming exemption without justification. • Spotlight— Assuming individuals that get the most attention to be indicative of the whole. • Straw Man— Misrepresenting the opposing argument. • Two Wrongs Make a Right— Justifying something unethical/immoral as response or pre-emption to something else unethical/immoral.
Response to those who like to compare 4e to a Video GameShow
Also, I find that the "D&D 4e is like an MMO" argument is often a sign of someone who is deliberately being obtuse and/or is potentially ignorant of actual MMO play. As someone who only ended a 6-year World of Warcraft addiction a year ago, I can say that most of your bullet points actually don't match up to the truth of it.
In D&D 4e, you can choose a hybrid, you can choose to play one class as though it were another (people played Warlords as Bards frequently, when the edition first came out, and Rangers were refluffed to Monks), you can focus your class on its secondary role (a Warlock who is more controller than striker, for instance), you can multiclass, and you can create a particular concept (a mounted lancer, a charger, etc.) within the mechanics via feats, choice of powers, and choice of skills. You decide which set of stats you use--are you a Chaladin, Straladin, or Baladin?--and you have ultimate influence on how your character turns out in the end. Yes, powers require you to be using a particular weapon within your class's available selection, but the powers are not themselves tied to the gear. Powers tied to weapons or armor are typically powers that belong to the item, not to the character class that's most likely to use it.
Yes, there are only so many powers available, and these will be what you do in battle; this is all that the designers created. Yes, there is a time-frame in which they can be used; this has always been the case, even in the days of Vancian casting. Yes, there are suggested builds, but you can routinely ignore those if it pleases you; the only parts of a class you have to take are the class features, and even those have options at this point. But the only way that this can be considered at all conflatable with MMO character building/playing is if you are deliberately ignoring all of that.
In WoW, you choose a class and you're done. No multiclassing or hybridization, no way to mimic one class with careful building of a different one. There is a firm dividing line on what is a WoW class. No secondary roles or creative concepts, either; you're going to be what the class sets out to be, and that's it. You'll always have the same stat allocation as another of your class, because you get set numbers as you level up, and you've got at best four options--and that's only the Druid class--to build, and if you plan on running dungeons, particularly heroic level ones, or raiding, you'd better not even think of deviating from the single defined best build on the talent tree for what you want to do. It was only recently, with the complete tear-down and recreation of talent trees for Mists of Pandaria, that there was a concept of there being anything but the one best build that people who calculated such mechanical advantages (the folks on Elitist Jerks, for example), and the people who did things like achieve "World First" at various top-tier raids set precedent for.
Also, no class will ever not have a specific set of powers; all Priests in WoW have the same baseline, with deviation only based upon their talent tree specialization, where a D&D4e player could take whatever power in their class pleases them. Any Retribution Paladin will be the same as any other in terms of powers, because that is what a RetPally is. Any Assassination Rogue will always have the same powers as another, etc. All powers are always on specific cool-downs, but will always be there when they start a battle, where a 4e PC might enter an encounter with only At-Wills, or without their Daily powers due to what plot has done up until that point. Furthermore, no power that is not already specifically tied to an item will ever "require" you have that item, to my recollection. Classes get all their powers based on class; gear only gives bonuses to stats, possibly cuts down cast times for abilities or cooldowns, grants temporary extra bonuses to stats (the latter two most often on the raid tier equipment), and on rare occassions an extra power that may or may not be valuable, as some are only special effects instead of valuable abilities.
Most honest/open response on why DDN needs to be InclusiveShow
I've always felt it is in the best interests of D&D to be as inclusive across the playerbase as they can be and still have a game. I've never felt though that making a game that was inclusive within a group was very useful or even desirable. DM's and players can decide amongst themselves what options or restrictions they want for their games. I tend to lean to the DM to make most of those decisions but again that is a group specific thing.
Having said that. I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of players on these boards who come from groups that generally ruled against their own desires. It's almost like they are an oppressed minority from a gaming perspective. I also get the impression that they tend to advocate against things that if available their fellow group members might like and vote them down on.
Do a lot of you feel this way?
Just for clarification...here are some examples... 1. Alignment restrictions as an option. 2. Alignment Mechanics 3. Martial healing 4. Races being included or not.
I know my perspective is not that I often play at tables where my likes are not represented. Instead, my perspective comes from the many years I spent being a bad DM. I was a bad DM because my guidance came from the books, and the books gave bad advice. The books told me that alignment was a useful approach to roleplaying, so I went with it even though it felt kind of weird to me. Now I know that, at least in my style of running games, alignment destroys rp. I trusted the books to give good advice, and it messed up my game. Now I'm much more mature as a DM, so I know how to take advice with a grain of salt. And I still learn new stuff every session I run.
I don't want future DMs to go through my problems again. There's a big enough DM shortage as it is. DMing well is hard.
The biggest thing I had to unlearn in my process of becoming a good DM was the idea that the game is a simulation of a world. I understand many DMs prefer a more simulationist approach, although I am always skeptical simply because I would have said the same thing until I learned and grew as a DM. This doesn't mean their approach is completely invalid, but it still gives me a personal twinge when I see a regression back to 3e era sim style gaming.
I also have noticed many groups where one or two old-school players run a whole group's playstyle because the newer players aren't even aware there are other ways of doing things. The newer players tell me stories of things they hated in the session, and I end up explaining to them how those things they hate are very fixable, and in fact are fixed in the newer edition of the game their older players have told them is terrible.
In regard to things like martial healing, I don't think it's necessary for it to be in the game for the game to be fun. However, the attitude that says martial healing is terrible and shouldn't exist is an attitude that, to me, reveals a wrongheaded approach to the game. Therefore, my fight for it to be an option is to help legitimize the more narrative approach that I think is what most players want, but many don't know is possible, because they've never been exposed to it.
Their A ...The easiest way to describe this is that you can't make a hypnotized person cause harm to themselves.
Hypnotism and pretty much all the other Powers mentioned indeed allow you to make the targets attack themselves RAW, because they are meeting the requirement of bening a creature of your choice still.
This is pretty much a concensus on the Rule Q&A Forum if i am not mistaken. You can find previous related answer here, here, here and so forth...
Hypnotism: The target uses a free action to make a melee basic attack against a creature of your choice, with a +4 power bonus to the attack roll.
If the design intent really was 'you can't make a hypnotized person cause harm to themselves', it would be stated in the power with language such as:
Hypnotism: The target uses a free action to make a melee basic attack against a creature of your choice (but not itself), with a +4 power bonus to the attack roll.
I have always run it as everyone is saying, allowing a creature to harm itself, all while expecting that WotC would disagree. It goes against the spirit of D&D across various editions to have charmed/compelled/etc. creatures to harm themselves. Sure, there were a few cases where it was possible, but overall it seems to be seen as something that should be rare.
I personally think it is more fun and fine balance-wise to allow self-targeting in these cases, but I won't be surprised if designers feel otherwise.
Yes, you can make a target of Hypnotism attack itself. Or, indeed, jump (slide) off a cliff, though it does get a saving throw. Unless its MBA specifically targets enemies, it can hit itself.
Yes, this is not how hypnosis works IRL. D&D is not real life.
Question: (John Lent)09/22/2011 01:47 PM Can a Thri-kreen (or revenant thri-kreen) HOLD a weapon or implement in its lower claws? I know it cannot WIELD a weapon or implement, but there are some things you can do just by holding something there - for example, some weapons and implements shed light in 20 squares just by virtue of being held there.
Answer: In the rules as written, Thri-Kreen cannot hold weapons, shields, or implements in their middle limbs at all. However, we encourage Dungeon Master's to try out variations of the rules. Tifa Online Response Crew Wizards of the Coast
At our LFR table, a player presented us with this bizarre conundrum.
He's playing a Drow, and he took both the Instinctive Darkness and Shadowslip Feats. This resulted in the following exchange:
1) his character is targeted by a Melee 4 attack. He's currently three squares away. 2) Instinctive Darkness has his cloud of darkness racial power trigger as an immediate reaction to being targeted by the melee attack. 3) Shadowslip allows him to shift 2 squares as a free action whenever he uses cloud of darkness. The player presents the argument that this is a triggered free action. As a result, it functions similarly to an immediate reaction to the use of cloud of darkness. He then shifts out of reach of the attack.
A lot of debate occured over whether or not this worked, and Customer Service replied with the following:
The rules on pg. 196 of the Rules Compendium state that: "An immediate reaction waits for its trigger to finish, not necessarily for the action that contains the trigger to finish."
This means the Immediate Reaction version of the Cloud ofDarkness resolves after the "being targeted by an attack" trigger, but before an attack roll is made.
The Shadowslip free action will also resolve before the attack is actually rolled. And if that 2 square shift moves the Drow out of the range of the attack, then the attack roll cannot be made and the attack is wasted.
"You can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies." -The Doctor, Remembrance of the Daleks
Per the RC pp 201, "Two squares are adjacent if a side or a corner of one touches a side or corner of the other. Two creatures or objects are adjacent if one of them is in a square adjacent to a square occupied or filled by the other, or if they are in the same square."
This does not define if/when a creature is adjacent to a square.
Per the RC pp 246, the trigger for an opportunity attack is, "An enemy that you can see either leaves a square adjacent to you or uses a ranged or area power while adjacent to you." By strict RAW definitions, there is no way to determine if/when a creature is adjacent to a square.
This would seem to invalidate all movement triggers for opportunity attacks.
Obviously common sense must be applied to make this work, given a lack of RAW definition.
The question that I wish to ask is this; if two creatures are sharing a square, and one creature leaves that square, is it leaving 'a square adjacent to you'? There are arguments back and forth on this issue on the Rules Q&A and Character Optimization forums.
Thank you for writing in. The Rules Compendium on page 201 does state "Two squares are adjacent if a side or a corner of one touches a side or corner of the other" and "Two creatures or objects are adjacent if one of them is in a square adjacent to a square occupied or filled by the other, or if they are in the same square." While it does not specifically state that creatures (while occupying a square) can be adjacent to a square, this is what is intended by the rules.
If you have a tiny creature that is sharing a square with a medium sized enemy creature and one of them leave that square, it would provoke an attack of opportunity.
I’ve passed along this conversation to the game’s developers. We place great value in the feedback, ideas, and suggestions of our customers. I assure you that Game Support meets with teams around the company on a regular basis, and we make it a priority that your voice is heard. While we cannot guarantee a direct response, we can promise that your thoughts and concerns are being passed along to the right people.
The ranger power "throw and stab" let's you make a ranged attack at one target, move your speed, then make a basic attack against another target.
Heavy Blade Opp (HBO) lets you use an at-will power in place of an opp attack so long as you are wielding a heavy blade.
Two Weapon Flurry let's you make an opportunity attack at -5 to hit when you hit with your main weapon on an opportunity attack.
Seven Fates Archer lets you make ranged attacks instead of melee attacks when you make opportunity attacks.
So if I am a Ranger-Seeker Seven Fates archer, with the aforementioned feats and powers, wielding two drow long knives (thrown offhand heavy blades - lets call them A and B for reference), and an enemy provokes from me, can I:
Activate HBO to let me use Throw and Stab.
Throw my offhand Drow Long Kinfe B at the creature that provoked.
Move my speed to another target and then attack him with a melee basic attack with Drow Long Knife A.
On a hit with Drow Long Knife A, trigger Two Weapon Flurry to take a second opportunity attack (at -5 to hit).
For the second opportunity attack, again use Heavy Blade Opportunity to replace the melee basic with Throw and Stab.
Repeat that cycle until I miss with the melee basic.
********************
Answer:
"It does appear that as written, this will works. I am going to escalate this along to our be reviewed by our Dungeons and Dragons development team. Do note that you will want to verify this with your Dungeon Master In all cases he does have final say since it is his campaign world you are playing in."
Side note: I play Living Forgotten Realms where the rules as written trump DM fiat. Second side note: I believe that if you are a half-elf versatile master with Magic Missile as your dilettante power and arcane implement proficiency heavy blade, this combo automatically kills every creature in Range 20 (since you need only make a "successful opp attack" and you can substitute a ranged basic attack for a melee basic granted as an opp attack - ie for the "stab"). Anticipating the argument that you cant use Seven Fates Archer that way, let's further assume you take an epic destiny that makes you a ShadarKai for feat purposes and you the Reaper's Touch feat that lets you use magic missile as a melee basic. As soon as any enemy provokes an opp attack, they all die.
